I've often wondered if the porn one is able to find on the internet is there because it's what an audience would like it to be, or rather if it's prevalent because of some sorting mechanism by which the least bad at the moment is what's chosen. I suspect it's the latter of the two, or at least it is in my case. In large fashion, let's face it: as the need to get off increases, the standards of what's acceptable decrease. And this is where 'good enough' porn comes in, which is--to the extent I'm able to discern--how most, if not all, gay porn operates. So, in a fit of pique about this and in the hopes that some porn producers will take note and create porn that really hits the mark, I present my thoughts.
By way of analogy, just recall a time in which you were scouring the local card shop for a card of some appropriate description to commemorate some event of profundity in a loved one's life. And there you've found the perfect cover. The artwork is excellent, the lead-in is just wry enough. You grab it, open the card and happily read through - each line hitting the mark better than the previous. Suppose you're, oh, I don't know, in the market for one for an atheist friend, or a Muslim friend. And there it is. Right at the end, "Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior; praise Him on high."
Clearly, that card simply won't do. You move on until you find one that has no great parts, but also nothing that completely ruins it. You grab it and move on with your chore. That is what beating off to porn is like.
Casting: know the scene and tailor it to the performers you have. Pay attention to the various roles each participant is to play. Straight guy fantasies are a popular genre, and I'll use that to tease out what I mean. If the setup is that there's a gay guy who's going to somehow or another talk the 'straight' guy into putting out, don't cast in the role of the 'straight' guy the queeniest queen you can possibly find. It's like having a super-hero movie where the hero is armless, legless, blind, deaf, has no super powers and died three years ago nevertheless saves the day. Oh, and he had a limp too. It's just not believable and makes for a crappy story. (more on how to make these work later)
If you're going through the motions of having a story in the first place, why go out of your way to make it suck? Remember, a fantasy that is so far removed from reality as to be unbelievable makes for a bad story. And in turn ruins the plot of a porn. If you just want two guys to fuck, skip the story and just have them fuck. Notably, I know precisely 0 people who prefer those types to types with a story.
Audio and Video: remember that you're making a video people are going to very often want to watch alone without the entire world being aware of what's going on behind the closed door. People have roommates, neighbors, kids, visitors, and so on down the line. That is to say that you should be well-aware of the audio levels and not have parts of the dialogue which are so quiet as to be inaudible (thus requiring either a volume adjustment by the person watching, or a change in closeness to the computer/tv) and another part so loud. For a quick reference, think of network television where the commercials are so dramatically louder than the show; in order to hear the show, one has to crank up the volume which gives rise to an over-loud commercial break. If one has to be concerned about manually adjusting the audio levels throughout the movie so as to be able to hear what's going on but too afraid that the entire neighborhood is going be awoken in a moment, then you're not thinking about your audience.
Yet far too many porn producers seem to think that something people dislike is precisely what they should endeavor to include in their videos, which they ostensibly want people to enjoy. Enjoyment of a finished product leads to future confidence and in turn more revenue.
That said, setup the audio equipment in such a way that the sound levels, on balance, aren't too different one part of the scene to the next. Related to this is the absolutely horrible way in which far too many videos are recorded because the built-in microphone is used and the camera person is unaware of how to maintain an appropriate distance to compensate for while filming from behind versus in front. On the front-end, things are louder because there aren't bodies interfering with the sound waves; from behind, there are those bodies and thus a quieter recording.
Also, don't do any crazy up-close shots. If there is a part anywhere in the scene where at a single glance of any still taken one wouldn't be able to tell if it's the left side of someone's knee, someone's ass, a nut, the side of someone's face, then the cameraman should be let-go; he doesn't know what he's doing. In order for the video to be enjoyable, one has to be able to know what it is that one is seeing.
Music: don't.
Background noise: this quite nicely ties in with audio levels from above. If there's some reason to have a show or music playing as part of the scene (as opposed to porn music put in) to add a dimension of reality to the scene, fine. Just be aware of where the sound source is relative to the actors. In particular, on a lot of internet sites which do work with real straight guys, for instance, there will be straight porn playing in the background for the straight guy to use. This might be a revelation for porn producers, but gays aren't all that interested in listening to women screaming they want it deeper and harder and faster, and we're not all that interested in listening to some guy off screen talking about some chick's pussy. I know, it's hard to imagine. But it's true. If it absolutely must be in the background, keep the volume low.
Also, while on the subject, if you can keep a woman out of the video entirely, so much the better. Also, just FYI, a bi-video isn't gay porn. It's bi porn. Don't market as gay porn something that isn't.
Elements: this is perhaps the most complex section because there are tons of different genres and nothing as short as this article could address all of them. But in general, less is easier to deal with than more is. By this I mean that if you try to include too much so as to more broadly appeal, you actually are reducing the audience for the same reason the card in the example above was a deal-breaker. Every element added to a story has to match the interest of the people watching it. I will address explain this section in greater detail with lots of examples in a follow-on article.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Pst, Al Franken....
Hey, Al:
So, I was milling around on the internet when I happened upon a recent senate hearing discussing what is ostensibly some kind of response to 'gun violence'. Several times during the hearing, you made reference to the absence of even a single instance in which an AR-15 has been used for self defense. Not a single example to be found you proclaimed a few times. You've been asked to imagine hypotheticals though, which you seem not to be satisfied with. Allow me to assist you, Al.
All I can really say, Al, is that as a comedian you were able to pull off better research on Ann Coulter than it seems you and your entire staff, having at its disposal the full resources of the United States Congress (aren't you a member of the more reflective chamber?), could manage. I thought about actually digging into some police reports, but then I figured I'd spot you one by just restricting myself to Youtube. Now, my guess is that it happens often enough that I'll be able to find a video on Youtube in, well, under 15 seconds. Now, I know you're really enthusiastic about this legislation, for the children of course. It's always about the children. So, I'll just use some keywords from the, ahem, anti-AR-15 homily to which the C-SPAN audience was, um, entreated?
Anyway, I'll just type in "AR-15 defense children" and see what comes up.
Hot damn! Research is hard these days!
All of that time you claim to have spent reading the previous record and thinking hard about this subject and you couldn't find a single example. I think you're totally slow-playing that Harvard education, Al. Or have you spent too much time around Ann Coulter?
(oh, for everyone else, do be sure to send this to Al Franken. And never let it be said that I never gave Al anything. Oh, who am I kidding? I seriously doubt even if he sees this he'll drop the 'I haven't seen a single example' line.)
On a serious note:
Al, the reason you don't find the examples in the 'record' is one of those whole seek and ye shall find kind of jobbies. If you really wanted to find it, it would be a trivial moment's effort to find what you imply is so obscure as to not yet have been read into the 'record'. You're a senator in the United States of America. If you wanted an example, open your mouth to one of your assistants and I'm sure they can find you as many as you'd like. It's on youtube.
I can only surmise the reason you've managed not to find an example is because you've done the very hard work of neither asking nor looking.
So, I was milling around on the internet when I happened upon a recent senate hearing discussing what is ostensibly some kind of response to 'gun violence'. Several times during the hearing, you made reference to the absence of even a single instance in which an AR-15 has been used for self defense. Not a single example to be found you proclaimed a few times. You've been asked to imagine hypotheticals though, which you seem not to be satisfied with. Allow me to assist you, Al.
All I can really say, Al, is that as a comedian you were able to pull off better research on Ann Coulter than it seems you and your entire staff, having at its disposal the full resources of the United States Congress (aren't you a member of the more reflective chamber?), could manage. I thought about actually digging into some police reports, but then I figured I'd spot you one by just restricting myself to Youtube. Now, my guess is that it happens often enough that I'll be able to find a video on Youtube in, well, under 15 seconds. Now, I know you're really enthusiastic about this legislation, for the children of course. It's always about the children. So, I'll just use some keywords from the, ahem, anti-AR-15 homily to which the C-SPAN audience was, um, entreated?
Anyway, I'll just type in "AR-15 defense children" and see what comes up.
All of that time you claim to have spent reading the previous record and thinking hard about this subject and you couldn't find a single example. I think you're totally slow-playing that Harvard education, Al. Or have you spent too much time around Ann Coulter?
(oh, for everyone else, do be sure to send this to Al Franken. And never let it be said that I never gave Al anything. Oh, who am I kidding? I seriously doubt even if he sees this he'll drop the 'I haven't seen a single example' line.)
On a serious note:
Al, the reason you don't find the examples in the 'record' is one of those whole seek and ye shall find kind of jobbies. If you really wanted to find it, it would be a trivial moment's effort to find what you imply is so obscure as to not yet have been read into the 'record'. You're a senator in the United States of America. If you wanted an example, open your mouth to one of your assistants and I'm sure they can find you as many as you'd like. It's on youtube.
I can only surmise the reason you've managed not to find an example is because you've done the very hard work of neither asking nor looking.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
May It Please the Court
Dear Judge Lori B. Jackson:
If it please the court, your honor, I should like to take a moment of the court's time to discuss an issue involving your honor's incompetence, if it's all the same to you. You see, judge, you are at present the jurist presiding over a divorce case involving one Mr. James Kirk, and one Mrs. Tina Kirk who, as your honor will know, have two minor children. As you will also know in regards this case, the court has been presented with a guardian ad litem report (hereinafter 'the report') recommending that said minor children, whose names I shall not mention, should be placed in the care of their father rather than their mother as a consequence of their mother's ill-controlled alcoholism and general mental illness. Also present in the report is a documented history of abusive conduct on the part of the mother as directed towards these minor children.
These reports are fairly common in your line of work, and would in the course of a normal case not rise to level of being remarkable beyond the parties directly involved (i.e., yourself, the parents, their lawyers, and various government officials otherwise bound up in dealing with this particular case); however, the instant case has a few peculiarities which attendance has drawn my attention. I, of course, refer to your decision to place the minor children in the custody of their mentally ill, abusive and alcoholic mother rather than their father, and in disregard of the report indicating that the mother is unsuited at present to properly care for the children in addition to her being abusive against them. Further compounding matters is the fact that the publicly available report has found its way to a website whereat a copy, which redacts the name of the children, has been posted to bring to the attention of the public-at-large your decision.
The guardian ad litem has filed an injunction request with the court to enjoin both Mr. Kirk and avoiceformen from posting said report, and to order the latter to remove from its website the redacted copy of the public report because the report, it is alleged, does not serve the best interests of the children. Presumably, if the best interests of the children are served by your placing these children in the care of a drunken, mentally ill parent who has a documented history of abusing her children, then people discussing the fact that you have put these children at physical risk of being harmed must serve their best interests, for stopping someone from being, oh, say, beaten is an issue more pressing than someone discussing the fact that someone has been beaten, and you clearly have ruled that being beaten is in a child's best interest.
As noted in the guardian ad litem's motion now pending before the court notes, said motion was served on the attorney of record who is representing Mr. Kirk in the case now before your court. In an order for a hearing on this motion which you had entered into the record on September 28, I can't help but notice that Mr. Kirk's attorney's name appears on page two just above your signature. I also cannot help but to notice that you have dutifully lined through the attorney's name and appended to page one of this order a handwritten note which you've initialed indicating that the order should be served on Mr. Kirk directly for he is, on your telling, not represented by an attorney. What is more is that I cannot find (a), a note indicating that his attorney no longer represents him, or (b) that Mr. Kirk has informed the court that he wishes to proceed without an attorney.
And as a peculiar aside to all of this, judge, I notice that I am not subject to the jurisdiction of your court, and even if I were, I am not a named party in the motion, so your order enjoining any of the named parties from publishing this document wouldn't apply to me in any event. Thus, in an effort to educate you in the ways of the internet; viz., the Streisand Effect, should you actually sign an order enjoining said parties from hosting or publishing this document, I shall immediately upload said document and host said document for the public, as their interest might dictate, might view it at their convenience. During the intervening period of time, I shall only link to it on the avoiceformen website.
Best Regards,
Justi
Somewhere Your Writ Won't Run
If it please the court, your honor, I should like to take a moment of the court's time to discuss an issue involving your honor's incompetence, if it's all the same to you. You see, judge, you are at present the jurist presiding over a divorce case involving one Mr. James Kirk, and one Mrs. Tina Kirk who, as your honor will know, have two minor children. As you will also know in regards this case, the court has been presented with a guardian ad litem report (hereinafter 'the report') recommending that said minor children, whose names I shall not mention, should be placed in the care of their father rather than their mother as a consequence of their mother's ill-controlled alcoholism and general mental illness. Also present in the report is a documented history of abusive conduct on the part of the mother as directed towards these minor children.
These reports are fairly common in your line of work, and would in the course of a normal case not rise to level of being remarkable beyond the parties directly involved (i.e., yourself, the parents, their lawyers, and various government officials otherwise bound up in dealing with this particular case); however, the instant case has a few peculiarities which attendance has drawn my attention. I, of course, refer to your decision to place the minor children in the custody of their mentally ill, abusive and alcoholic mother rather than their father, and in disregard of the report indicating that the mother is unsuited at present to properly care for the children in addition to her being abusive against them. Further compounding matters is the fact that the publicly available report has found its way to a website whereat a copy, which redacts the name of the children, has been posted to bring to the attention of the public-at-large your decision.
The guardian ad litem has filed an injunction request with the court to enjoin both Mr. Kirk and avoiceformen from posting said report, and to order the latter to remove from its website the redacted copy of the public report because the report, it is alleged, does not serve the best interests of the children. Presumably, if the best interests of the children are served by your placing these children in the care of a drunken, mentally ill parent who has a documented history of abusing her children, then people discussing the fact that you have put these children at physical risk of being harmed must serve their best interests, for stopping someone from being, oh, say, beaten is an issue more pressing than someone discussing the fact that someone has been beaten, and you clearly have ruled that being beaten is in a child's best interest.
As noted in the guardian ad litem's motion now pending before the court notes, said motion was served on the attorney of record who is representing Mr. Kirk in the case now before your court. In an order for a hearing on this motion which you had entered into the record on September 28, I can't help but notice that Mr. Kirk's attorney's name appears on page two just above your signature. I also cannot help but to notice that you have dutifully lined through the attorney's name and appended to page one of this order a handwritten note which you've initialed indicating that the order should be served on Mr. Kirk directly for he is, on your telling, not represented by an attorney. What is more is that I cannot find (a), a note indicating that his attorney no longer represents him, or (b) that Mr. Kirk has informed the court that he wishes to proceed without an attorney.
And as a peculiar aside to all of this, judge, I notice that I am not subject to the jurisdiction of your court, and even if I were, I am not a named party in the motion, so your order enjoining any of the named parties from publishing this document wouldn't apply to me in any event. Thus, in an effort to educate you in the ways of the internet; viz., the Streisand Effect, should you actually sign an order enjoining said parties from hosting or publishing this document, I shall immediately upload said document and host said document for the public, as their interest might dictate, might view it at their convenience. During the intervening period of time, I shall only link to it on the avoiceformen website.
Best Regards,
Justi
Somewhere Your Writ Won't Run
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)